If you are fillnig up on the way to work in the morning because you forgot to fill up last night, you aren't going to be spending 30 minutes doing grocery shopping.
Solving limited range is a good thing.... but it's only the first of three steps that are needed to seriously be a contender for the "normal" type of car, which is what the post to which I initially responded suggested.
Making it affordable, which is what the above poster mentioned, is still only the second step. The third step is making it convenient. That means fast recharge time. Once an electric car, whether it is from Tesla or any other manufacturer, provides this, then you will start to see electric cars really taking off in terms of popularity, and being a contender for the everyday car that gasoline vehicles have enjoyed for decades.
It's also needed if you forget to plug in your car one night, where at least with a gasoline car you can make a brief pit stop on the way to work the next morning. 5 minutes to fill up a gasoline vehicle.
People like convenience. Denying that aspect of human nature is only living with blinders on.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to sell their car, I'm just challenging the notion that a Tesla will ever start to be a contender against IC vehicles when the recharge times are not anything remotely comparable to how long it takes to fill a car with gasoline.
Making it good is the first step. Making it affordable is the second. Making it convenient is the third and final step. Miss any one of them and it won't compete.
That's only viable if they live close to where they work, or else where they work is well served by public transit. The former isn't always an option when where one works is in an industrial park quite far removed from residential property.
May I ask why you feel there should be a need to reconcile them when we don't even have any proof that intelligent extraterrestrial life even exists? One might well assume that it does, but what purpose does it serve trying to reconcile a religious work with an assumption that you're only more liable to make if you don't believe in the literal bible in the first place?
There are complications with that notion too, biblically speaking. Jesus was supposedly to die once, and once for all sin, everywhere. Until we discover intelligent life elsewhere, however, there is really not any kind of impending need to try and reconcile what the bible appears to say with the notion of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
If each planet with life had their own original sinners, then each such world would ultimately need to receive a saviour, where the bible suggests that God had only one son. It is not consistent with how much God is alleged to love mankind to suggest that he could have reasonably died multiple times on separate worlds because that diminishes the significance of his death on any one of them. Further,
Christs death would not have been sufficient redemption for people who were created on another world since Christ was, despite somehow being God, also born to a human and lived and died as a human.
Further, the biblical account of Adam and Eve states that God cursed creation after man's sin, so that it would require work to produce what man needed to live. Sin itself is attributed biblically as what causes things, all things, to die, and is thus the cause of entropy.
Of course, it's just a whole lot easier to swallow if you don't believe that it actually happened the way it is talked about in the bible, but I wouldn't try and pretend that people who do believe in the bible wouldn't have some issues with intelligent life being found elsewhere, unless such life either evolved from us or else we evolved from them (the latter case suggesting that adam and eve would not have actually been from this world, nor had they necessarily originally sinned on this world).
But even the strictest literal biblical interpretation should not have any difficulty with certain types of primitive life being found on other worlds, since our modern definition for life may be considerably broader than what the bible's is.
There's no incompatibility if ET's are equivalent to animals, but there is if you suppose they could have a sense of right and wrong, since reading the bible as-is suggests that original sin is basically what causes entropy to exist. How can that not have enormouse implications for another civilization that did not evolve from humanity or vice-versa?
Since it's a long long way from little green men, as you put it, I'm not sure why you think even a lot of creationists would "flip their shit". Some would, I have little doubt... but I'm not convinced it would really be that many.
The existence of life, particularly very simple kinds of life, is not remotely incompatible with the bible. The existence of advanced *intelligent* life, however, may be.
The "immunity" you refer to protects them from civil action, but does not protect them from the consequences of criminal behavior, except to the extent that their position *may* be able to provide enough of a shield for sufficient proof to convict them.
There are incompatibilities between the bible and the existence of certain types (eg advanced intelligence) of extra-terrestrial life, particularly when you consider all of the factors and implications of sin, and especially human sin.
The entire point of NAT is to have some user-provided man-in-the-middle on a connection so while communication is still possible on that connection, there is no actual end-to-end-connectivity. It is at least true that for a vast quantity of internet access, end-to-end connectivity is not necessary, and an argument can be made that at least some of the time, end-to-end connectivity may not even be particularly desirable for some devices (while I may want my xbox, for example, to have an internet connection to obtain DLC, I do not need the device to have globally visible IP in order to achieve this, nor do I particularly want it to, and if I can afford to have a man-in-the-middle on my network that can mediate connections between some of my local devices and the internet at large, I should reasonably be able to to do so, and in such a way that it should not be apparent to applications that are running on the device that do *NOT* require end-to-end connectivity that this is being done. While a proxy can achieve this as well, it typically requires explicit application support).
While arguably one of the biggest problem with NAT is that it does not scale well, with a single MitM device potentially managing a very large number of simultaneous connections, that does not mean it cannot still be useful in limited circumstances where this behavior is still actively desired. Ideally, it should be the end-user's choice (and with the vast address space in IPv6, at least such a choice can be an option), and the choice should be easily set (defaulting to one or the other) for each device that they connect to their network.
The warning makes a difference in that it provides a paper trail of evidence that points at some of the specific people who would have known about the issue. That means that it is also possible to know exactly who some of the people that should be facing criminal liability for this issue are.
It's not faulty logic... it's a reformulation of the classic halting problem, a well known paradox in computer science, and founded entirely on very solid reasoning.
My point is only that it either fails to predict a murder would happen because the murder is thwarted before it can, it fails to predict a murder in the first place, or else it predicts a murder that nobody will be able to stop. In the latter case, it's worthless, and the other two cases, it's wrong.
That a system might be developed that can be used to prevent crimes that may have *OTHERWISE* happened has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have said... all I am showing is that there when it comes to matters of human decision or action, there will invariably be a factor involved that can change absolutely any possible so-called predictable outcome.
Of course it would be great to prevent a murder from happening in the first place, but that still doesn't mean you can charge them with attempted murder if they haven't actually already tried to do it. As I saId though, charging them with intent to commit murder, or conspiracy to commit murder would be entirely accurate.
And any system that allegedly predicted they would murder someone in the future would in fact be proven by said thwarting to have been inaccurate, since the murder was prevented, it did not occur, and the prediction was therefore false.
If you take action to prevent a predicted outcome, you either only end up fulfilling the outcome or else you invalidate the prediction. That's not to say that invalidating the prediction would be bad in this case, but it demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a system cannot be infallible. What if the would-be-murderer had second thoughts just before killing? Why should the would-be-murderer's actions be any more predetermined by the predictive power of the algorithm than the actions of law enforcement that could show up in time to prevent said murder?
Slashdot Mirror
And who is responsible for a fraudulent charge if both support chip and pin?
How is what I said hateful, racist, or bigoted?
"Enemy"? Really?
Wow. Just... wow.
If you are fillnig up on the way to work in the morning because you forgot to fill up last night, you aren't going to be spending 30 minutes doing grocery shopping.
Solving limited range is a good thing.... but it's only the first of three steps that are needed to seriously be a contender for the "normal" type of car, which is what the post to which I initially responded suggested.
Making it affordable, which is what the above poster mentioned, is still only the second step. The third step is making it convenient. That means fast recharge time. Once an electric car, whether it is from Tesla or any other manufacturer, provides this, then you will start to see electric cars really taking off in terms of popularity, and being a contender for the everyday car that gasoline vehicles have enjoyed for decades.
It's also needed if you forget to plug in your car one night, where at least with a gasoline car you can make a brief pit stop on the way to work the next morning. 5 minutes to fill up a gasoline vehicle.
People like convenience. Denying that aspect of human nature is only living with blinders on.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to sell their car, I'm just challenging the notion that a Tesla will ever start to be a contender against IC vehicles when the recharge times are not anything remotely comparable to how long it takes to fill a car with gasoline.
Making it good is the first step. Making it affordable is the second. Making it convenient is the third and final step. Miss any one of them and it won't compete.
That's only viable if they live close to where they work, or else where they work is well served by public transit. The former isn't always an option when where one works is in an industrial park quite far removed from residential property.
Not everybody has a power outlet where they park at home.
Only if you have a home that can charge it where you are parked.
Not everybody lives in a house. In fact, in some cities, very few people do.
Only if you can recharge at least 50% in about the same amount of time as it takes to refill a car with gas.
You hit the nail on the head.
You are misunderstanding what a data cap is.
May I ask why you feel there should be a need to reconcile them when we don't even have any proof that intelligent extraterrestrial life even exists? One might well assume that it does, but what purpose does it serve trying to reconcile a religious work with an assumption that you're only more liable to make if you don't believe in the literal bible in the first place?
There are complications with that notion too, biblically speaking. Jesus was supposedly to die once, and once for all sin, everywhere. Until we discover intelligent life elsewhere, however, there is really not any kind of impending need to try and reconcile what the bible appears to say with the notion of intelligent extraterrestrial life.
Don't be ridiculous, they would burn to death. :)
Since you asked...
If each planet with life had their own original sinners, then each such world would ultimately need to receive a saviour, where the bible suggests that God had only one son. It is not consistent with how much God is alleged to love mankind to suggest that he could have reasonably died multiple times on separate worlds because that diminishes the significance of his death on any one of them. Further, Christs death would not have been sufficient redemption for people who were created on another world since Christ was, despite somehow being God, also born to a human and lived and died as a human.
Further, the biblical account of Adam and Eve states that God cursed creation after man's sin, so that it would require work to produce what man needed to live. Sin itself is attributed biblically as what causes things, all things, to die, and is thus the cause of entropy.
Of course, it's just a whole lot easier to swallow if you don't believe that it actually happened the way it is talked about in the bible, but I wouldn't try and pretend that people who do believe in the bible wouldn't have some issues with intelligent life being found elsewhere, unless such life either evolved from us or else we evolved from them (the latter case suggesting that adam and eve would not have actually been from this world, nor had they necessarily originally sinned on this world).
But even the strictest literal biblical interpretation should not have any difficulty with certain types of primitive life being found on other worlds, since our modern definition for life may be considerably broader than what the bible's is.
There's no incompatibility if ET's are equivalent to animals, but there is if you suppose they could have a sense of right and wrong, since reading the bible as-is suggests that original sin is basically what causes entropy to exist. How can that not have enormouse implications for another civilization that did not evolve from humanity or vice-versa?
Since it's a long long way from little green men, as you put it, I'm not sure why you think even a lot of creationists would "flip their shit". Some would, I have little doubt... but I'm not convinced it would really be that many.
The existence of life, particularly very simple kinds of life, is not remotely incompatible with the bible. The existence of advanced *intelligent* life, however, may be.
The "immunity" you refer to protects them from civil action, but does not protect them from the consequences of criminal behavior, except to the extent that their position *may* be able to provide enough of a shield for sufficient proof to convict them.
There are incompatibilities between the bible and the existence of certain types (eg advanced intelligence) of extra-terrestrial life, particularly when you consider all of the factors and implications of sin, and especially human sin.
If there is a record of a warning, then there already is a paper trail. Where o you think evidence that a warning ever even happened came from?
The entire point of NAT is to have some user-provided man-in-the-middle on a connection so while communication is still possible on that connection, there is no actual end-to-end-connectivity. It is at least true that for a vast quantity of internet access, end-to-end connectivity is not necessary, and an argument can be made that at least some of the time, end-to-end connectivity may not even be particularly desirable for some devices (while I may want my xbox, for example, to have an internet connection to obtain DLC, I do not need the device to have globally visible IP in order to achieve this, nor do I particularly want it to, and if I can afford to have a man-in-the-middle on my network that can mediate connections between some of my local devices and the internet at large, I should reasonably be able to to do so, and in such a way that it should not be apparent to applications that are running on the device that do *NOT* require end-to-end connectivity that this is being done. While a proxy can achieve this as well, it typically requires explicit application support).
While arguably one of the biggest problem with NAT is that it does not scale well, with a single MitM device potentially managing a very large number of simultaneous connections, that does not mean it cannot still be useful in limited circumstances where this behavior is still actively desired. Ideally, it should be the end-user's choice (and with the vast address space in IPv6, at least such a choice can be an option), and the choice should be easily set (defaulting to one or the other) for each device that they connect to their network.
The warning makes a difference in that it provides a paper trail of evidence that points at some of the specific people who would have known about the issue. That means that it is also possible to know exactly who some of the people that should be facing criminal liability for this issue are.
It's not faulty logic... it's a reformulation of the classic halting problem, a well known paradox in computer science, and founded entirely on very solid reasoning.
My point is only that it either fails to predict a murder would happen because the murder is thwarted before it can, it fails to predict a murder in the first place, or else it predicts a murder that nobody will be able to stop. In the latter case, it's worthless, and the other two cases, it's wrong.
That a system might be developed that can be used to prevent crimes that may have *OTHERWISE* happened has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I have said... all I am showing is that there when it comes to matters of human decision or action, there will invariably be a factor involved that can change absolutely any possible so-called predictable outcome.
Of course it would be great to prevent a murder from happening in the first place, but that still doesn't mean you can charge them with attempted murder if they haven't actually already tried to do it. As I saId though, charging them with intent to commit murder, or conspiracy to commit murder would be entirely accurate.
And any system that allegedly predicted they would murder someone in the future would in fact be proven by said thwarting to have been inaccurate, since the murder was prevented, it did not occur, and the prediction was therefore false.
If you take action to prevent a predicted outcome, you either only end up fulfilling the outcome or else you invalidate the prediction. That's not to say that invalidating the prediction would be bad in this case, but it demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that such a system cannot be infallible. What if the would-be-murderer had second thoughts just before killing? Why should the would-be-murderer's actions be any more predetermined by the predictive power of the algorithm than the actions of law enforcement that could show up in time to prevent said murder?